Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #378778

Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;(

From GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;(
Date 2016-10-31 20:24 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <nv8uc2$n15$14@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <nv7rga$43f$1@dont-email.me> <e7pb76Fkv6fU2@mid.individual.net> <nv80so$kjm$9@dont-email.me> <e7pfeuFm6f1U1@mid.individual.net> <nv81ia$erj$2@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/31/16 12:12, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2016-10-31, Jim Polaski<jpolaski@linuxmail.org>  wrote:
>> On 2016-10-31, GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com>  wrote:
>>> On 10/31/16 10:52, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-31, Silver Slimer<>   wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-31 9:53 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-10-31, Silver Slimer<>   wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-10-30 8:15 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-10-30, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:58:34 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom<OFeem1987@teleworm.us>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Oct 2016 20:50:12 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Polaski<jpolaski@linuxmail.org>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-10-30, Melzzzzz<mel@zzzzz.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:24:32 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melzzzzz<Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tried kernel 4.8.5 in orther to switch from trusty 4.7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but alas got BUG softlockup on CPU(s) during rsync. Have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard reset, switched back to 4.7...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hm, it seems that it is zfs bug after all. Just had messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding zfs on 4.7 ;(
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Returned to 4.8 to test further, but it seems kernel is ok as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had problems with rsync from zfs on 4.7 either....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes I think you Linux dweebs would be bored if Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually worked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does work.  I use it for about 90% of my computing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He simply neglects that I run bleeding edge everything, so problems are
>>>>>>>>> expected ... I think I have found culprit. It's if i ran two instances
>>>>>>>>> of rsync bug happens. And it is zfs related...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then you can't be using Linux for anything important.
>>>>>>>> Unless tinkering with Linux is important to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Constant fun flatfish! ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He should go somewhere else and promote Windows.  Or maybe help
>>>>>>>>>> out the Gates Foundation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He promotes Window alright ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People can choose to use Linux if they desire to.
>>>>>>>> They don't.
>>>>>>>> The reason is Linux sucks as a desktop system and all the lying and half
>>>>>>>> truths told by the Linux herd can't change that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When something given away for free is shunned by some 99 percent of
>>>>>>>> computer users it's time to reevaluate that product and make changes in
>>>>>>>> order to make the product more appealing to the market.
>>>>>>>> It will never happen though. Linux will continue to fragment, cause
>>>>>>>> division of the users (can you say systemd?) and so forth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use GTK or use QT? Use Mir or use Wayland? It never ends with the
>>>>>>> controversies in the Linux camp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Th infighting is harming Linux as a whole. If anything it makes the
>>>>>> Linux users and developers look like spoiled babies.
>>>>>> And they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "advocates" will tell you that it doesn't matter whether you prefer
>>>>> QT or GTK as the programs of one will work in the environment of the
>>>>> other as long as the dependencies are installed. Those dependencies,
>>>>> however, don't prevent programs from one library from looking completely
>>>>> off in the environment of the other. These programs usually ignore
>>>>> personalization choices and any other settings your system might have.
>>>>> As or Wayland vs. Mir, this is a situation where both camps would
>>>>> clearly have benefited from working together rather than competing for
>>>>> what is essentially the same thing. If they had, we'd have a finished
>>>>> product instead of two shoddy, unstable and unfinished ones.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>> Linux does a lot of different things.
>>>> The problem is it doesn't do them well.
>>>> Linux has 15 crappy, inconsistent DE vs one quality, consistent DE like
>>>> OSX or Windows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And with complete idiots like Chris Ahlstrom, William Poaster, 7, chrisv
>>>>>>>> and many others like them "advocating" Linux, Microsoft has nothing to
>>>>>>>> worry about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the very least, Linux will appear to be the choice of closet
>>>>>>> homosexuals, transsexuals and idiots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone should create a Linux distribution for sexually confused Linux
>>>>>> users and call it :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "TrannyLinux"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or "TransLix".
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be suggesting that there is such a thing as a Linux user who
>>>>> _isn't_ sexually confused.
>>>>
>>>> Better yet!
>>>> The distribution will be at the top of Distrowatch in no time!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> For Microsoft it's like a war against 5 different armys where one has
>>>>>>>> the guns, another has the bullets, another has the maps, another the
>>>>>>>> petrol and the last has the trucks to transport the troops. The problem
>>>>>>>> is none of the armys talk to each other.
>>>>>>>> That's Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like the Soviet army during the Second World War.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's why Linux has been stagnating as a desktop system since the
>>>>>>>> day it was born.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be fair, it's improved but it's still a gigantic distance from where
>>>>>>> it should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure Linux has improved. It's where Windows XP's last version was about
>>>>>> 10 years ago.
>>>>>> And that's a maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mind you, XP was ridiculously stable AND fast which is one of the many
>>>>> reasons people still hold onto it to this day. Linux is not stable
>>>>> though it is very fast if you choose the right desktop environment. So
>>>>> it still doesn't compare too well to Windows XP.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is that pesky topic of applications.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is one thing I noticed about OS X... they have violated their own
>>> GUI guidlines.  In TextEdit, there used to be "Save As...", but it is
>>> now gone in El Capitan.  Now there is just "Save".  So how does one save
>>> an Untitled file with a new name?  You have to use the menu item Move.
>>> Really dumb one.
>>>
>> Apple is realling going down the drain these days.
>> Look at the prices on their recent MBP models.
>> Way overpriced for the power you are getting.
>>
> Is it true that new mac book does not have ESC and function keys? No more vi
> for mac users ;)
>

Last I looked the ESC key is still there.  vi is still there.
The whole system is still slow tho.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 11:24 +0000
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:14 -0700
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 09:39 -0400
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:50 -0700
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:54 -0700
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:12 +0000
        Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 10:30 -0400
          Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:40 +0000
            Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 12:49 -0400
              Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 18:41 +0000
              You are not fooling anyone, Mr. Maggot. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:21 -0700
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 10:27 -0400
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 09:49 -0400
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-30 13:49 +0000
    Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:57 -0700
      Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:11 +0000
        Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 15:35 +0100
          Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 10:38 -0400
            Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:45 +0000
              Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 12:50 -0400
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 18:42 +0000
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 17:31 -0400
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 10:58 -0700
            Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-30 16:11 +0000
            Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 19:46 +0000
              Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 16:04 -0400
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 20:52 +0000
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 21:54 +0100
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-30 22:42 +0100
                Re: Melzzzzz must be just some kind of a Linux idiot ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 18:08 +0000
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 15:33 +0100
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-30 12:47 -0400
        Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 18:38 +0000
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 10:14 -0400
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:24 +0000
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 10:26 -0400
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 07:32 -0500
        Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 12:59 +0000
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 15:26 +0100
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 14:31 +0000
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-30 16:09 +0000
  Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 21:47 +0100
    Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 20:50 +0000
      Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-30 22:06 +0100
        Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 21:09 +0000
        Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 18:58 -0400
          Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 00:51 +0100
            Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 00:15 +0000
              Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-31 09:19 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 13:53 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-31 12:29 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 16:52 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-10-31 12:01 -0600
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 18:05 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 18:12 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-31 15:08 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-31 19:27 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 23:44 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-10-31 20:25 -0600
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-31 22:43 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-11-01 17:17 -0600
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-11-01 19:21 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 16:46 -0700
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 17:33 -0700
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-11-02 08:05 -0400
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-10-31 20:24 -0600
            Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 06:22 -0700
              Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 13:29 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-10-31 12:02 -0600
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 18:10 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-31 19:46 +0100
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 18:58 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-31 21:25 +0100
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-01 03:49 +0000
              Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 13:54 +0000
                Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-10-31 12:02 -0600
          Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-31 01:10 +0100
            Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-31 10:50 +0000
              Re: kernel 4.8 still bugged ;( DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-11-01 12:56 -0400

csiph-web